[music]
Is there any merit to the studies that show
that historical CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes, not lead them.
Well yes, there's merit to that.
In fact in the pre-industrial age, the CO2 response to temperature was that
the temperature would go up and CO2 would go up.
Or if the temperature went down, CO2 would go down.
And the reason for that is when the temperature went up, the whole biosphere revved up and emitted CO2,
and we had more CO2 in the atmosphere. So we understand that process.
The problem for the science community is in the post-industrial age
the CO2 rise is preceding the temperature rise.
So two different things happened, one pre-industrial,
where temperature was driving the CO2, and post-industrial,
where CO2 was driving temperature. Which means a completely different physical-biological process is going on
And we don't understand what the consequence of that change is.
It is a fundamental change to how the earth works
and the earth's radiation balance works.
And so, we're very concerned because we don't see any restraining force
on continued increase in temperature due to continued increase in CO2. And that's a problem.
[music]